Retrieve public TUMonline semesters and identify the current default semester. Use it to choose or verify a semester for student data queries.
List public TUMonline semesters from ee/rest/slc.lib.tm/semesters/student. No token. The selected semester is the current default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no authentication token is required and the selected semester serves as the default, which helps the agent understand access and result semantics. The endpoint path adds little, and return structure is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the core action. The raw endpoint path ('ee/rest/slc.lib.tm/semesters/student') is largely wasted text for an agent, but the rest is tight and free of padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool whose annotations cover safety and that has no output schema, the description conveys the essentials. However, it leaves the language parameter unexplained and says nothing about the shape of returned semester data, leaving gaps an agent may need to fill.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter (language, enum de/en) at 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions it. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description contributes no meaning about what the language parameter controls, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the concrete resource 'public TUMonline semesters,' making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with course or person lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. 'No token' hints at ease of access but is not usage direction, and 'the selected semester is the current default' describes return semantics rather than invocation criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.